On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 02:09:15PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:12:11 +0800
> Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:47:50AM -0400, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -2877,6 +2912,7 @@ static bool kvm_accel_has_memory(MachineState *ms,
> > > AddressSpace *as,
> > >
> > > for (i = 0; i < kvm->nr_as; ++i) {
> > > if (kvm->as[i].as == as && kvm->as[i].ml) {
> > > + size = MIN(kvm_max_slot_size, size);
> > > return NULL != kvm_lookup_matching_slot(kvm->as[i].ml,
> > > start_addr, size);
> > > }
> >
> > Ideally we could also check that the whole (start_addr, size) region
> > is covered by KVM memslots here, but with current code I can't think
> > of a case where the result doesn't match with only checking the 1st
> > memslot. So I assume it's fine.
> yep, it's micro-optimization that works on assumption that whole memory
> section always is covered by memslots and original semantics where
> working only for if start_addr/size where covering whole memory section.
>
> Sole user mtree_print_flatview() is not performance sensitive,
> so if you'd like I can post an additional patch that iterates
> over whole range.
No need it's fine, thanks!
--
Peter Xu
